Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 0:12:38 GMT -5
I think they will indeed have the Cojones, and it costs them nothing because they can strip the coverage while looking like heroes. If people squeal like stuck pigs, they'll point them towards Obama. Which might work among a small population of Catholics, but probably not the majority. 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Almost 60% think every employer should be required to cover it in their insurance plans. If the church thinks they can buck those stats and pin this on Obama, they're most likely in for a rude awakening. This is a big deal among Bishops and Cardinals, otherwise known as uber conservative old geezers. Rank and file Catholics probably aren't up in arms over this, and I doubt they'd blame Obama instead of the church if they decided to drop coverage over this.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 9, 2012 0:20:06 GMT -5
I think if we lose coverage for birth control within our insurance plans we can expect the cost to double. We will lose the ins negotiated rates.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:40:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 0:46:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:40:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 8:15:39 GMT -5
bean29--Not covered means you pay 100%. It doesn't mean you don't get whatever negotiated rate the insurance company happens to have.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 9, 2012 9:52:02 GMT -5
faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/wsj_health.pdfOPINION FEBRUARY 9, 2012 Corbis By JOHN H. COCHRANE When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant. Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom. Although the ruling was meant to be final, presidential advisers said this week that the administration might look for a compromise. Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives? I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill. Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more. How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employerprovided group insurance. If your employer pays you $100 less in salary and buys $100 of group insurance for you, you don't pay taxes on that amount. Hence, the more insurance costs and covers, the less in taxes you seem to pay. (Even that savings is an illusion: The government still needs money and raises overall tax rates to make up the difference.) To add insult to injury, this tax deduction does not apply to portable, guaranteed-renewable individual insurance. You don't get the tax break if your employer gives you the $100 and you buy a policy—a policy that will stay with you if you get sick, leave employment or get divorced. The pre-existing conditions crisis is largely a creature of tax law. You don't lose your car insurance when you change jobs. Why did HHS add this birth-control insurance mandate—along with "well-woman visits, breast-feeding support and domesticviolence screening," and "all without charging a co-payment, coinsurance or a deductible"—to its implementation of a provision of the new health-care reform law? "Because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies," says the HHS advisory panel. Because these "historic new guidelines" will make sure "women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services," says the original HHS announcement. To "increase access to important preventive services," echoes White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Notice the doublespeak confusion of "access" and "cost." I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms. Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place. "Allowing women to space their pregnancies"? Was there some sort of federal ban on birth control before this? It's not about "access" and it's not about "insurance." It's because Americans, when paying even modest copayments, choose to spend their money on other things. They prefer a new iPod to a "wellness visit" to the doctor. As the HHS unwittingly admits: "Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate." Click link for the rest of the text.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,001
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 10, 2012 12:33:48 GMT -5
The latest news on this just sounds bizarre. It looks to me that they are really requiring the same thing but just rewording it to make the religious feel better. The insurance companies are still going to have to charge enough to cover the contraception, whether the employer requests it or not. nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10371870-obama-revamps-contraceptive-policyPresident Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.
Instead, the White House is demanding that insurance companies be responsible for providing free contraception.
Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama's health care law that he insisted must remain.
But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.
"Religious liberty will be protected," said Obama from the press briefing room of the White House.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 12:51:53 GMT -5
Is any one else confused by this distinction? Either way insurance companies were providing free birth control, so how has this wording changed anything?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 13:11:40 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 13:19:33 GMT -5
Is any one else confused by this distinction? Either way insurance companies were providing free birth control, so how has this wording changed anything? it doesn't. but why should churches get to tell insurance companies what they can do?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Feb 10, 2012 13:32:00 GMT -5
This is what happens when you give to government the power to give you what you want: they makes you do what IT wants you to do, or what someone ELSE wants you to do.
Shrink government, lessen its power, and let people live their own lives and obtain what they desire, including birth control, on this own. Otherwise, it is an invitation to slavery and tyranny as the Catholic Church is finding out. The Church was for Obamacare? Well I guess the old saying is true: "when you dance with the devil, you're going to get burned." The Church made its bed and now it's trying to fight its way out when it should have KNOWN what a liberal, religion-hating political hack like Obama would do!
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 13:37:01 GMT -5
Mandates for contraceptives coverage have been around longer than Obama.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 13:37:02 GMT -5
The real question is why should our government tell churches or insurance companies what they can do. I listened to part of the speech and I couldn't figure out what the change was but noticed he took advantage of the opportunity to blame it on the cynical Republicans. He tried to make some silly case that because the insurance companies have been mandated to provide this for"free" that the church wasn't paying for contraception. What he didn't mention was he he thinks is paying for it.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 13:42:33 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 13:46:04 GMT -5
The Church isn't telling anyone they can't have abortions, pills, whatever. They are simply refusing to pay for it. Many Catholics, even ones using contraception themselves, can appreciate the distinction. it is all about choice.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 13:48:21 GMT -5
IMO, republicans have to be careful to not look like they are using Catholics for political gain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 13:48:43 GMT -5
The real question is why should our government tell churches or insurance companies what they can do. fair question. so, if i decided that i don't want to hire black people, do you think the government should be able to tell me what to do?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 13:49:42 GMT -5
Sure DJ, but I don't think people will like the "choice" of pay for it yourself or do without. Personally, I don't see why this is included but not vision care or dental. I suppose being blind or toothless is better than birthin' babies. people are so lazy about vision and dental. we had those plans here and nobody ever used them. i don't get it.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Feb 10, 2012 13:53:25 GMT -5
The Church isn't telling anyone they can't have abortions, pills, whatever. They are simply refusing to pay for it. Many Catholics, even ones using contraception themselves, can appreciate the distinction. it is all about choice. Including the choice to not pay for or to not provide something that you are morally opposed to? Or the choice to not buy healthcare coverage or to only buy the healthcare coverage that you think is suited for you? You lose choice the more powerful government becomes. Let's go to free market solutions and personal empowerment! Get rid of Obamacare and instead let the liberals create their own healthcare insurance company to operate on whatever principals they desire and let him (try) to beat out that evil health insurance companies with their (supposedly) price raising profit margins and high CEO pay! If the left is right, they will win and achieve their goal of a one payer system as they force everyone else out of business and there's not a thing the SCOTUS can do because they are operating within the Constitution! But the left it too arrogant, power hungry, and quite frankly scared to actually take a risk with their own money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 6:40:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 14:21:11 GMT -5
"so, if i decided that i don't want to hire black people, do you think the government should be able to tell me what to do?"
This is unrelated to the discussion. The situation you reference damages another person. This is a matter of forcing a company to offer a service they don't want to. And in the end, all of the ObamaCare shenanigans are going to drive up costs, making things worse.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 14:24:58 GMT -5
fair question.
so, if i decided that i don't want to hire black people, do you think the government should be able to tell me what to do?
The first question might be.. Does it violate the constitution?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 14:29:37 GMT -5
Churches have some eeoc exemptions.Rulings citing the first amendment have sunk cases against them. Religious claims, though, not race.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 14:33:45 GMT -5
"so, if i decided that i don't want to hire black people, do you think the government should be able to tell me what to do?" This is unrelated to the discussion. no it isn't. the question was why should a company be forced to tow the line for the government. there is a reason for that, and a precedent for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 10, 2012 14:34:55 GMT -5
fair question. so, if i decided that i don't want to hire black people, do you think the government should be able to tell me what to do? The first question might be.. Does it violate the constitution? clearly not, if you are an originalist.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 14:37:35 GMT -5
The vast majority of people have no choice in insurance coverage.They take what their employer gives them.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 16:50:54 GMT -5
If Obama gives churches the expansions on exemptions they want, Republicans will have to be careful about how they frame future arguments on the issue, IMO.... If the public sees it turn from a war on religion, to a war on contraceptives, it might not bode well for them.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 10, 2012 16:57:00 GMT -5
The Prez is showing some signs of personal growth. ___________________________________________________ Obama revamps contraceptive policy nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10371870-obama-revamps-contraceptive-policyBy NBC News, msnbc.com staff and wire reports Updated at 12:53 p.m. ET- President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees. Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama said he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies. "Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. That core principle remains," he said from the White House briefing room. "Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women," Obama added. Planned Parenthood responded Friday with a statement, saying, "The Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work ... we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy ..." Following an intense White House debate that led to the original policy, officials said Obama seriously weighed the concerns over religious liberty, leading to the revamped decision. It was just on Jan. 20 that the Obama administration announced that religious-affiliated employers -- outside of churches and houses of worships -- had to cover birth control free of charge as preventative care for women. These hospitals, schools and charities were given an extra year to comply, until August 2013, but that concession failed to satisfy opponents, who responded with outrage. Catholic cardinals and bishops across the country assailed the policy in Sunday Masses. Republican leaders in Congress promised emergency legislation to overturn Obama's move. The president's rivals in the race for the White House accused him of attacking religion. Prominent lawmakers from Obama's own party began openly deriding the policy. The sentiment on the other side, though, was also fierce. Women's groups, liberal religious leaders and health advocates pressed Obama not to cave in on the issue. The furor has consumed media attention and threatened to undermine Obama's re-election bid just as he was in a stride over improving economic news. Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter must faster than anticipated. The fact that Obama delivered the news himself was a sign of the stakes.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 10, 2012 16:57:48 GMT -5
If Obama gives churches the expansions on exemptions they want, Republicans will have to be careful about how they frame future arguments on the issue, IMO.... If the public sees it turn from a war on religion, to a war on contraceptives, it might not bode well for them. The Obama admin passed out 100s of exemptions to favored business' and labor unions, to not have to comply with Obamacare.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 10, 2012 16:59:33 GMT -5
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012. This new law will save money for millions of Americans and ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy. Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it. Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accomodates important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below: • Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science. • Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that: o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections. o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented. • The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy: o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception. o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception. o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception. o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge. o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage. Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee. "
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 10, 2012 17:07:29 GMT -5
I'd check your sources again. The prez just announced he is withdrawing his stance.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2012 17:07:40 GMT -5
Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee. " Won't the cost of BC still be passed through to the catholic church premiums? I mean the BC isn't free & will be paid for with premium money. It is only cost neutral if you are saving money by not having to pay for babies & therefore the cost savings is still directly linked to the insurance program that would be paying for the babies. I so don't understand this & I don't see how this is a "win" for the church. Whether directly or indirectly, their premiums still are going to pay for BC.
|
|